Editing Utilitarianism (section)

==Historical background==

=== Pre-modern formulations ===
{{see also|Hedonism|State consequentialism}}
The importance of [[happiness]] as an end for humans has long been argued. Forms of [[hedonism]] were put forward by the ancient Greek philosophers [[Aristippus]] and [[Epicurus]]. [[Aristotle]] argued that ''[[eudaimonia]]'' is the highest human good. [[Augustine of Hippo|Augustine]] wrote that "all men agree in desiring the last end, which is happiness". The idea that conduct should to be judged by its consequences also existed within the ancient world. Consequentialist theories were first developed by the ancient Chinese philosopher Mozi, who proposed a system that sought to maximize benefit and eliminate harm.<ref name="Fraser2016">{{cite book|last1=Fraser|first1=Chris|title=The Philosophy of the Mòzĭ: The First Consequentialists|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=J76lDAAAQBAJ|year=2016|publisher=Columbia University Press|isbn=978-0-23-152059-1|page=138}}</ref>  [[Mohism|Mohist]] consequentialism advocated [[Communitarianism|communitarian]] moral goods, including [[political stability]], [[population growth]], and [[wealth]], but did not support the utilitarian notion of maximizing individual happiness.<ref name="Fraser">{{cite book|last1=Fraser|first1=Chris|title=The Oxford Handbook of World Philosophy|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=F06FKmKKIXwC&pg=PA62|year=2011|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-532899-8|page=62}}</ref> 
 
Utilitarian ideas can also be found in the work of medieval philosophers. In medieval India, the 8th-century philosopher [[Santideva|Śāntideva]] wrote that we ought "to stop all the present and future pain and suffering of all sentient beings, and to bring about all present and future pleasure and happiness."<ref>Goodman, Charles. 2016. [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/shantideva/ "Śāntideva"], Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 31 August 2020.</ref> In medieval Europe, happiness was explored in depth by [[Thomas Aquinas]] in his ''[[Summa Theologica]]''.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2001.htm|title=SUMMA THEOLOGICA: Man's last end (Prima Secundae Partis, Q. 1)|work=newadvent.org}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2002.htm|title=SUMMA THEOLOGICA: Things in which man's happiness consists (Prima Secundae Partis, Q. 2)|work=newadvent.org}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2003.htm|title=SUMMA THtheEOLOGICA: What is happiness (Prima Secundae Partis, Q. 3)|work=newadvent.org}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2004.htm|title=SUMMA THEOLOGICA: Things that are required for happiness (Prima Secundae Partis, Q. 4)|work=newadvent.org}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2005.htm|title=SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The attainment of happiness (Prima Secundae Partis, Q. 5)|work=newadvent.org}}</ref> During the Renaissance, consequentialist ideas are present in the work of political philosophy of [[Niccolò Machiavelli]].

=== 18th century ===
Utilitarianism as a distinct ethical position only emerged in the 18th century, and although it is usually thought to have begun with [[Jeremy Bentham]], there were earlier writers who presented theories that were strikingly similar.

==== Hutcheson ====
[[Francis Hutcheson (philosopher)|Francis Hutcheson]] first introduced a key utilitarian phrase in ''An Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue'' (1725): when choosing the most moral action, the amount of [[virtue]] in a particular action is proportionate to the number of people it brings happiness to.<ref>{{cite book|last=Hutcheson|first=Francis|title=Moral Philosophy from Montaigne to Kant|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2002|isbn=978-0-521-00304-9|editor-last=Schneewind|editor-first=J. B.|page=515|chapter=The Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue|orig-year=1725}}</ref> In the same way, [[moral evil]], or ''[[vice]]'', is proportionate to the number of people made to suffer. The best action is the one that procures the greatest happiness to the greatest numbers, and the worst is the one that causes the most misery. In the first three editions of the book, Hutcheson included various [[mathematical algorithm]]s "to compute the Morality of any Actions." In doing so, he echoed the later-proposed [[Felicific calculus|hedonic calculus]] of Bentham.

==== John Gay ====
Some claim that [[John Gay (philosopher)|John Gay]] developed the first systematic theory of utilitarian ethics.<ref>Ashcraft, Richard (1991) John Locke: Critical Assessments (Critical assessments of leading political philosophers), Routledge, p. 691</ref> In ''Concerning the Fundamental Principle of Virtue or Morality'' (1731), Gay argues that:<ref>{{cite book |last= Gay |first= John |editor-first= J. B. |editor-last= Schneewind |title= Moral Philosophy from Montaigne to Kant |publisher= Cambridge University Press |year=2002 |page=408 |chapter= Concerning the Fundamental Principle of Virtue or Morality |isbn= 978-0-521-00304-9}}</ref>
{{blockquote|happiness, private happiness, is the proper or ultimate end of all our actions... each particular action may be said to have its proper and peculiar end…(but)…they still tend or ought to tend to something farther; as is evident from hence, [[viz.]] that a man may ask and expect a reason why either of them are pursued: now to ask the reason of any action or pursuit, is only to enquire into the end of it: but to expect a reason, i.e. an end, to be assigned for an ultimate end, is absurd. To ask why I pursue happiness, will admit of no other answer than an explanation of the terms.|author=|title=|source=}}

This pursuit of happiness is given a [[Theology|theological]] basis:<ref>{{cite book |last= Gay |first= John |editor-first= J. B. |editor-last= Schneewind |title= Moral Philosophy from Montaigne to Kant |publisher= Cambridge University Press |year=2002 |pages=404–05 |chapter= Concerning the Fundamental Principle of Virtue or Morality |isbn= 978-0-521-00304-9}}</ref>
{{blockquote|Now it is evident from the nature of God, viz. his being infinitely happy in himself from all eternity, and from his goodness manifested in his works, that he could have no other design in creating mankind than their happiness; and therefore he wills their happiness; therefore the means of their happiness: therefore that my behaviour, as far as it may be a means of the happiness of mankind, should be such...thus the will of God is the immediate criterion of Virtue, and the happiness of mankind the criterion of the will of God; and therefore the happiness of mankind may be said to be the criterion of virtue, but once removed…(and)…I am to do whatever lies in my power towards promoting the happiness of mankind.|author=|title=|source=}}

==== Hume ====
In ''[[An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals]]'' (1751), [[David Hume]] writes:<ref>{{cite book|title=Moral Philosophy from Montaigne to Kant|last=Hume|first=David|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2002|isbn=978-0-521-00304-9|editor-last=Schneewind|editor-first=J. B.|page=552|chapter=An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals}}</ref>{{blockquote|In all determinations of [[morality]], this circumstance of public utility is ever principally in view; and wherever disputes arise, either in philosophy or common life, concerning the bounds of duty, the question cannot, by any means, be decided with greater certainty, than by ascertaining, on any side, the true interests of mankind. If any false opinion, embraced from appearances, has been found to prevail; as soon as farther experience and sounder reasoning have given us juster notions of human affairs, we retract our first sentiment, and adjust anew the boundaries of moral good and evil.|author=|title=|source=}}

==== Paley ====
[[File:Modern Utiitarianism by Birks.png|thumb|''Modern Utilitarianism'' by [[Thomas Rawson Birks]], 1874]]
Gay's theological utilitarianism was developed and popularized by [[William Paley]]. It has been claimed that Paley was not a very original thinker and that the philosophies in his [[treatise]] on ethics is "an assemblage of ideas developed by others and is presented to be learned by students rather than debated by colleagues."<ref name="Schneewind 2002 446">{{cite book |last=Schneewind |first=J. B. |title=Moral Philosophy from Montaigne to Kant |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2002 |page=446 |isbn= 978-0-521-00304-9}}</ref> Nevertheless, his book ''The Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy'' (1785) was a required text at [[University of Cambridge|Cambridge]]<ref name="Schneewind 2002 446" /> and Smith (1954) says that Paley's writings were "once as well known in American colleges as were the readers and spellers of [[William Holmes McGuffey|William McGuffey]] and [[Noah Webster]] in the elementary schools."<ref>{{cite journal |last=Smith |first=Wilson |date=July 1954 |title=William Paley's Theological Utilitarianism in America |journal=William and Mary Quarterly |series=3rd Series |volume=11 |issue=3 |pages=402–24 |doi=10.2307/1943313|jstor=1943313 }}</ref> Schneewind (1977) writes that "utilitarianism first became widely known in England through the work of William Paley."<ref>{{cite book |last=Schneewind |first=J. B. |title=Sidgwick's Ethics and Victorian Moral Philosophy |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=1977 |page=122 |isbn= 978-0-19-824552-0}}</ref>

The now-forgotten significance of Paley can be judged from the title of [[Thomas Rawson Birks]]'s 1874 work ''Modern Utilitarianism or the Systems of Paley, Bentham and Mill Examined and Compared''.

Apart from restating that happiness as an end is grounded in the nature of God, Paley also discusses the place of rules, writing:<ref>{{cite book |last= Paley |first= William |editor-first= J. B. |editor-last= Schneewind |title= Moral Philosophy from Montaigne to Kant |publisher= Cambridge University Press |year=2002 |pages=455–56 |chapter= The Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy |isbn= 978-0-521-00304-9}}</ref>

{{blockquote|[A]ctions are to be estimated by their tendency. Whatever is expedient, is right. It is the utility of any moral rule alone, which constitutes the obligation of it.

But to all this there seems a plain objection, viz. that many actions are useful, which no man in his senses will allow to be right. There are occasions, in which the hand of the assassin would be very useful.{{nbsp}}... The true answer is this; that these actions, after all, are not useful, and for that reason, and that alone, are not right.

To see this point perfectly, it must be observed that the bad consequences of actions are twofold, particular and general. The particular bad consequence of an action, is the mischief which that single action directly and immediately occasions. The general bad consequence is, the violation of some necessary or useful general rule.{{nbsp}}...

You cannot permit one action and forbid another, without showing a difference between them. Consequently, the same sort of actions must be generally permitted or generally forbidden. Where, therefore, the general permission of them would be pernicious, it becomes necessary to lay down and support the rule which generally forbids them.|author=|title=|source=}}